because people are well aware that they pay a lower rate than him.
Are you sure about that? Withholding and the byzantine tax code prevent most Americans from having any earthly idea what they actually pay.
From: red sox 777 | #200 Incidentally, Citizens United wanted to release a film they made called Hillary: The Movie attacking her during the Democratic Primaries in 2008, and that's what the case was about. I wonder if they were stealth Obama supporters if a Republican couldn't get elected that year.
You never know. Remember who the original birthers were?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
red sox 777 posted... Remember, it's an effective rate. That means after write-offs, deductions, etc.
I know, but.....97%? 15% isn't very high at all. I'm pretty sure my parents have paid more than that for like 2 decades, and they're definitely not rich. Having more investment income than earned income doesn't even help this, because it'll draw you closer to 15% but won't get you under it. I dunno.
Either way, I wouldn't have been surprised at all if it was 80% or even 90%. And it probably won't hurt Romney much, because people are well aware that they pay a lower rate than him.
I read just a couple of years ago that roughly 50% of Americans end up not paying any income taxes.
Also anyone whining about Romney and Buffett paying low income tax rates doesn't realize or care that their income is already taxed at the corporate level.
ETA: My effective rate last year was 10.32%. I probably make more money than the average single person.
--
2011 Board 8 User of the Year http://img.imgcake.com/fitgirljpgta.jpg
Also anyone whining about Romney and Buffett paying low income tax rates doesn't realize or care that their income is already taxed at the corporate level.
AND at the personal level. Romney cannot invest money he hasn't already earned, and he already paid taxes on it the first time he earned it, too.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I'd think that people would know their tax rate since they have to pay taxes- how else would you know how much to pay? And if they don't pay taxes, they know that their rate is 0%.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
AND at the personal level. Romney cannot invest money he hasn't already earned, and he already paid taxes on it the first time he earned it, too.
I don't really agree with that line of thinking. All money comes from somewhere. If, say, I tune pianos, I'm getting money from customers. And those customers have earned that money somewhere (or were given the money by someone who earned it). So they were already taxed on it before. But I'd have to pay taxes on it again, and as earned income to boot.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #204 I'd think that people would know their tax rate since they have to pay taxes- how else would you know how much to pay? And if they don't pay taxes, they know that their rate is 0%.
Step 1. Government takes money out of your check involuntarily
Step 2. Most people hire someone or use software to prepare their tax returns, where all you do is input in your salary, deductions, and the software spits out what you have to pay/give back.
Step 3. Nobody knows how much they pay as a percentage. I know I have no idea, but my situation is further complicated by a large portion of my salary being tax-exempt because the military calls it an "allowance" rather than pay.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: red sox 777 | #207 Just divide the total you paid (paid taxes + withheld taxes - refund) by your AGI. It's not particularly difficult to make a rough calculation.
But the point is, I don't NEED to do this. So I haven't. So I don't know.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I guess you're right, most people avoid math whenever they can, even if it's just a single simple division. I can't imagine not having a rough idea of how much you're paying though.
I think there probably is cognitive dissonance about deductions though. People think their own deductions are justified but others' aren't. Mitt Romney is probably getting a lot of deductions for donating 10% of his income to the Mormon church, for instance, but people aren't giving him credit for that.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I guess you're right, most people avoid math whenever they can, even if it's just a single simple division. I can't imagine not having a rough idea of how much you're paying though.
I mean, I have a very approximate idea about how much I pay, and an approximate idea about how much I make, but it's not exactly easy to approximate a percentage based on that, you know. Unless you're the freaking rain man or something.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Also, the more significant point, once again, is why would you? Who cares what percentage you pay. In terms of judgments and value scales that actually matter everyone in this country pays too much taxes, because they pay more than they'd like to pay. The ability to donate to the US treasury means that there is absolutely nobody in this country who pays less taxes than they would like to. Only liars who say they do.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Also, the more significant point, once again, is why would you? Who cares what percentage you pay. In terms of judgments and value scales that actually matter everyone in this country pays too much taxes, because they pay more than they'd like to pay. The ability to donate to the US treasury means that there is absolutely nobody in this country who pays less taxes than they would like to. Only liars who say they do.
Curiosity. Also, I mean, why would anyone care how much Mitt Romney paid? He didn't write the tax code. He has no control over his tax rate.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
1. Call policies supported by the majority of Americans socialist at every opportunity, invoking imagery of the USSR when possible 2. Propose changes to taxation, welfare, etc. that would significantly widen inequality compared to the status quo 3. Accuse your opponents of being the ones waging class warfare
The Republican attack plan
People using that line of attack have no love for Ron Paul, either. They're just trying to polarise the electorate so they get their "the only guy who can beat the other party" candidate nominated. Don't be part of that crap, Muffin.
-- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
I feel this is relevant since we were discussing slippery slope before. I find it amazing that the Roman Republic named so many people as dictators for a 6-month period before the Republic collapsed. 92 dictatorships before one of them finally declared himself Dictator for Life.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
BREAKING NEWS: from the AP ---- After being thoroughly disappointed and angry with his pitiful performance in tonight's debate, Newt Gingrich took to the streets of Jacksonville FL tonight in a fit of rage. Stay tuned for more details as this shocking story develops....
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
So, I'm kinda starting to like Mitt Romney. Not in a "he has good ideas and I'll vote for him" way but in a "I'm not offended by his presence" sort of way. He seems to be the only candidate who actually respects Dr. Paul and takes his ideas seriously. Maybe he's hoping for an eventual endorsement hoping the libertarian vote can push him over Gingrich or something...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, his strategy is to show respect and act presidential. Also, Mitt Romney is not insane or stupid like many candidates in the Republican Party, so it'd be natural for him to agree sometimes with the other candidate who is not insane or stupid.
I'd be okay with Romney as president. I consider him to be Barack Obama 2.0, with different rhetoric.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I don't consider Obama a horrible president though, just a mediocre to poor one. If we had Obama vs. McCain again, I'd vote Obama again........probably. Definitely if Palin is still the VP candidate.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Granted, maybe it only appears that way because Congress has been so divided. Who knows how many socialist laws could have been passed in those first 2 years but for the brave Republican senators who filibustered everything.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I'm considering voting for Obama if Newt Gingrich is the nominee. The Republican Party would need to be taught a lesson. I'd be hoping for Obama to win all 50 states in that case. MAYBE that would stop them from nominating progressives (but probably not).
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Somebody should seriously bring up the bill Gingrich introduced into Congress proposing the death penalty for marijuana possession of over a certain amount. The fact that no one has so far is probably a sign that the Republican base has gone completely insane, and many of them would actually want to vote for Gingrich based on this.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I was just reminded that the Roman Empire briefly conquered Iraq. It's interesting that the 3 most powerful world empires in history (Mongols, Rome, America) have all conquered Iraq. The Roman stay was about as short as ours (they gave it back to the Parthians voluntarily on the reasoning that the empire was becoming too big to defend), while the Mongols held it for a few decades.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The Mongols sure knew how to pursue total war. Hundreds of thousands of civilians massacred, the agricultural canals that supported the region's food destroyed, the great library's books thrown into the river, the Caliph rolled in a rug and trampled by horses. And no torture.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: SmartMuffin | #221 So, I'm kinda starting to like Mitt Romney. Not in a "he has good ideas and I'll vote for him" way but in a "I'm not offended by his presence" sort of way. He seems to be the only candidate who actually respects Dr. Paul and takes his ideas seriously. Maybe he's hoping for an eventual endorsement hoping the libertarian vote can push him over Gingrich or something...
Ah, so even you are falling for Romney's "oh crap people like this Ron Paul guy? Let me start agreeing with him occasionally so I don't love votes"
Actually if you click on the link, the piece is written by Stu Brugiere and includes direct quotes from the people in question. But no, it's cool of you to claim a piece is totally illegitimate when you haven't even bothered to read it.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
And I'm less taking issue with the quotes than the claim that 87-97% of people have a tax rate less than 15%. Do you (or this guy) have a reliable source that corroborates that claim?
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
In any case, conservative talk radio hosts are probably among the MOST credible sources out there. Why is that you ask? Because they get free hostile fact-checking courtesy of media matters, who employs multiple people whose full time job is to monitor Glenn Beck and make a HUGE deal out of any POSSIBLE perceived incorrect fact or inappropriate statement.
Trust me, if Glenn Beck ever said or published anything that was factually incorrect, you would hear about it, loudly and quickly, all over the place.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I ask you for a reliable source and you give me one subtitled "exposing and combating liberal media bias"
Anyway, that article assumes that everybody in each bracket pays the average for that bracket in taxes, which is definitely false; some of the people in the $100k-$200k bracket are certainly paying more than 13.9 percent. There are also things that one typically thinks of as part of your income tax (though they're technically not), such as the social security tax, which Romney is not paying at all because he makes no salary, and even when he did he wouldn't be paying much (as a percentage of his old salary, anyway) because you don't pay it on income past like $110k. So while the claim that 87% of people pay less income tax than Romney (certainly not the 97% figure) may be "technically correct," it's not really what people care about. They care about his total taxes.
Anyway I seem to recall a lot of times Beck said incorrect things back when he was on Fox news; the claim that they're the most credible sources is just laughable. They have a clear narrative they're trying to promote, they have every incentive to be untruthful. At best, they will selectively report the information that supports their viewpoints. You don't see me using Keith Olbermann as a source; why should I trust Glenn Beck?
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
I ask you for a reliable source and you give me one subtitled "exposing and combating liberal media bias"
Which goes on to post data PROVIDED BY THE IRS.
which Romney is not paying at all because he makes no salary
Untrue. He made some 300k from public speaking engagements in salary. Everyone who has been following this story AT ALL knows that.
They care about his total taxes.
Really? If that was the case, Romney still paid a TON more in "total taxes" than the average American and it's not even close.
Anyway I seem to recall a lot of times Beck said incorrect things back when he was on Fox news
Why don't you provide a few examples?
They have a clear narrative they're trying to promote
True.
they have every incentive to be untruthful
Untrue. For commentators, credibility is everything. Being found to peddle lies would be the end of their career.
At best, they will selectively report the information that supports their viewpoints
Fair enough. That means he shouldn't be used as someone's ONLY source for news. It doesn't mean the news he does report is automatically incorrect just because he's reporting it.
You don't see me using Keith Olbermann as a source; why should I trust Glenn Beck?
Because there is no right-wing equivalent to media matters. As I said, there are people whose full-time job is "find errors made by Glenn Beck." He knows this. He knows that the media will tear him apart if it happens. He has to be a LOT more careful than the mainstream media, because nobody bothers to fact-check them. Keith Olbermann can say what he wants. It doesn't matter because nobody is watching.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Yeah but they proceeded to draw incorrect conclusions from that data.
Oops by "total taxes" I mean "total tax rate"
The speaking engagements slipped my mind. In any case, if he's paying SS on 300k, he's paying roughly a third the SS tax rate that someone making 100k makes, because he's paying the same amount making three times the income. If we look at this tax as a percentage of his total income, it's negligible.
Here are some false things your pal Glenn has said, as requested (along with some true ones, but I'm not making the claim that everything he says is false): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
In any case, even a flat-tax would be inherently unfair. This piece is long, but very well worth it, and supports Rothbard's assertion that the closest possible thing to a "fair" tax would be a flat-rate tax, rather than a flat proportional tax.
